Here are digital captures from an XV-5080. I'm not sure about the other XV synths, but the 5080 features a "hidden" GS mode, with an instrument set compatible with the SC-50 (SC-55mkII minus the MT-32 tones).

Descent - Level 1

• GS Reset
• GM System On
• GM2 System On

Ys Eternal - First Steps Towards Wars

• GS Reset
• GM System On
• GM2 System On

Ys Eternal - Palace

• GS Reset
• GM System On
• GM2 System On

Well, *this* is why I don't make assumptions about synths anymore... even the basic GM bank sounds miles better than the one on the XP-30 and the JV synths (I've gotten recordings from my friends on their 1080 and they seem identical to my XP-30 and the 1010 uploads on YouTube besides DAC differences). The mixing is better, the instruments are better, pretty much everything is improved. It's very noticeable on Descent and Ys Eternal - First Steps Towards Wars, both of which had drums that were way too loud. I also didn't know about the hidden GS mode, that's pretty awesome.
Thanks a ton dude! You get my eternal respect and a shout out by someone with 1.6k subs 😉 Is there any particular place I should link, or just your YouTube channel and username?

You'll want to re-download the GS captures. There was an issue with the initial GS Reset not actually being a GS Reset. 😵

Yeah, compared to the JV line, I've always been of the opinion that the XV-5080 replicates the balance and dynamics of the Sound Canvas series to a much greater degree.

I'll pass on the shout-out, but thank-you. 😀

That it does, it seems to be significantly better going by those recordings.

If you say so... if you don't want to be named in the video at all then the part of the video where I go over this stuff will have to be worded something like this:
"(...)at least one of the XV synths, the XV-5080, makes a huge step in the right direction towards fixing this mode if these recordings provided by a friendly forum user are anything to go by."

Though I was planning to cut out the italic'd bit and just say,
"Thanks go to the VOGONS forum user Cloudschatze for making the XV-5080 recordings you just heard and for mentioning the hidden GS mode,"
at the end of the GM mode bit since I feel weird not at least giving you a proper thanks. But if you want to stay totally anonymous that's fine by me too, I just appreciate the recordings so I can make a more accurate and comprehensive video!

Search Gearslutz forums for these modules, the subject has been discussed at length by many, many people there (the same really goes for the JV-series). There are differences in the electronic components used in the sound processing and output stages that are responsible for the differences you hear.

yawetaG wrote:

Search Gearslutz forums for these modules, the subject has been discussed at length by many, many people there (the same really goes for the JV-series). There are differences in the electronic components used in the sound processing and output stages that are responsible for the differences you hear.

This is a separate discussion, for the most part. There are fundamental differences in the GM implementations/patches between Roland's higher-end product lines, irrespective of the electronic components involved.

There had been a relevant thread on the Quest Studios forum over a decade ago. While that's long gone, the "sound card comparison" page survives on the MIDI Music Adventure Show website, and includes recordings from a JV-1080, XV-5080, and Fantom XR.

http://www.midimusicadventures.com/queststudi … rd-comparisons/

well 5080 has bigger rom doesnt it? it also is doing 44khz instead of 32khz so it should sound better.

Certainly, but there's more to it than just higher-quality sound. As mentioned, and in reference to the comparison I'd linked to, the XV-5080 better matches the overall GM playback characteristics of the SC-55 than either the earlier JV-1080 or later Fantom XR.

yawetaG wrote:

(snip)

What Cloud said is accurate - this thread isn't concerning differences with sample rates, DACs and other stuff in that vain (I'm well aware of those) but the implementation of GM mode and how instruments were mapped/mixed.

Cloudschatze wrote:

There had been a relevant thread on the Quest Studios forum over a decade ago. While that's long gone, the "sound card comparison" page survives on the MIDI Music Adventure Show website, and includes recordings from a JV-1080, XV-5080, and Fantom XR.

http://www.midimusicadventures.com/queststudi … rd-comparisons/

Huh, I knew about that page before but somehow missed it had JV-1080/XV-5080 comparisons. Those are quite helpful too, thanks!

Can someone explain what these 'imbalances' are when compared to a Roland SC55? Are we talking volume differences across 16 MIDI channels? If so, you should be able to use a MIDI channel mixer to suit taste.

You're going to get variations across instruments between different tone generators due to samples used and signal path.

j^aws wrote:

Can someone explain what these 'imbalances' are when compared to a Roland SC55? Are we talking volume differences across 16 MIDI channels?

Volume levels/envelopes are a large part of it, but also filter envelopes, effect levels, timbre differences, etc. Outside of the authoring device and direct variants, GM-playback is mostly varying degrees of "close enough," some being more acceptable than others.

Here are a few SC-55mkII and XV-5080 comparisons I'd made with tracks from Quest for Glory IV some twelve years ago. I think the XV-5080 provides interesting, "close enough" renditions. Notwithstanding, I would never play this, or any game for that matter, with the XV-5080.

Meeting With Katrina

• SC-55mkII
• XV-5080

Hotel Mordavia

• SC-55mkII
• XV-5080

Hexapod Battle

• SC-55mkII
• XV-5080

Erana's Garden

• SC-55mkII
• XV-5080

Dr. Cranium's Laboratory

• SC-55mkII
• XV-5080

Finale

• SC-55mkII
• XV-5080

If so, you should be able to use a MIDI channel mixer to suit taste.

This would be grossly impractical in practice. 😀

It's not really a problem that needs to be solved though, so much as a difference to be noted - GM playback simply varies between higher-end Roland product lines.

Cloudschatze wrote:

j^aws wrote:

Can someone explain what these 'imbalances' are when compared to a Roland SC55? Are we talking volume differences across 16 MIDI channels?

Volume levels/envelopes are a large part of it, but also filter envelopes, effect levels, timbre differences, etc. Outside of the authoring device and direct variants, GM-playback is mostly varying degrees of "close enough," some being more acceptable than others.

So instead of being specifically a difference between GM banks, it is likely that for the same patches (no matter the kind of bank) there will always be differences between the XV and JV series, since effects and the like are dependent on the module itself and not specific to the GM bank...

This would be easy to confirm using a SR-JV card expansion card, since they can be used with both some JV series and some XV series modules.

Cloudschatze wrote:

Here are a few SC-55mkII and XV-5080 comparisons I'd made with tracks from Quest for Glory IV some twelve years ago. I think the XV-5080 provides interesting, "close enough" renditions. Notwithstanding, I would never play this, or any game for that matter, with the XV-5080.

Thanks for the links. I can hear subtle differences, but both are close. Did you use onboard DACs for both, or route via SPDIF for the XV-5080?

As I mentioned with the signal paths that alter the sound, the DAC would also be part of it, besides filters, effects processor and the sample itself for the instrument.

Cloudschatze wrote:

j^aws wrote:

If so, you should be able to use a MIDI channel mixer to suit taste.

This would be grossly impractical in practice. 😀

Why would you say that? You'd feed the MIDI Out to a hardware controller, which then feeds the synthesiser. The controller could have 16 sliders that send MIDI CCs to the target synth to control volume for each of the 16 MIDI channels, for example.

j^aws wrote:

Why would you say that? You'd feed the MIDI Out to a hardware controller, which then feeds the synthesiser. The controller could have 16 sliders that send MIDI CCs to the target synth to control volume for each of the 16 MIDI channels, for example.

That might work okay for some games but you'd run into issues with anything that uses a lot of volume and/or expression commands.

SpeedySPCFan wrote:

j^aws wrote:

Why would you say that? You'd feed the MIDI Out to a hardware controller, which then feeds the synthesiser. The controller could have 16 sliders that send MIDI CCs to the target synth to control volume for each of the 16 MIDI channels, for example.

That might work okay for some games but you'd run into issues with anything that uses a lot of volume and/or expression commands.

Okay, might be worth testing it out one day.

BTW, I've got a Roland XV5050 and tried digging it out, but it's buried in a pile of boxes somewhere, so won't be able to test it anytime soon.

SpeedySPCFan wrote:

j^aws wrote:

Why would you say that? You'd feed the MIDI Out to a hardware controller, which then feeds the synthesiser. The controller could have 16 sliders that send MIDI CCs to the target synth to control volume for each of the 16 MIDI channels, for example.

That might work okay for some games but you'd run into issues with anything that uses a lot of volume and/or expression commands.

Some MIDI mixers can handle multiple CC parameters at once, and can also be controlled from a sequencer for even more fun. See for example the Peavey PC1600.

Furthermore, nothing stops you from using a pedal board MIDI controller for even more realtime control (e.g. Roland FC-300, they still make it).

However, if the effect settings for the GM patches also play a big role in how the GM patches sound, you could also simply tweak the GM bank patches (and save them) to get closer to the real SC-55...

j^aws wrote:

You'd feed the MIDI Out to a hardware controller, which then feeds the synthesiser. The controller could have 16 sliders that send MIDI CCs to the target synth to control volume for each of the 16 MIDI channels, for example.

yawetaG wrote:

Some MIDI mixers can handle multiple CC parameters at once, and can also be controlled from a sequencer for even more fun...Furthermore, nothing stops you from using a pedal board MIDI controller for even more realtime control (e.g. Roland FC-300, they still make it).

Again, this is impractical, especially concerning game playback/usage. You would be endlessly tweaking volume levels on the fly - after Reset/System On messages, and following any subsequent Volume or Expression CCs that many sequences are going to contain throughout.

However, if the effect settings for the GM patches also play a big role in how the GM patches sound, you could also simply tweak the GM bank patches (and save them) to get closer to the real SC-55...

This type of minor tweaking isn't feasible with any of the synthesizers mentioned in this thread; the GM patches are a black box.

On the XV-5080, for example, the detailed settings for these patches cannot be viewed/edited, nor can a GM patch be copied to a user bank for detailed editing. Worse still, this patch data cannot be extracted out of the temporary patch buffer via any known SysEx - the request is simply ignored when a GM patch is selected. As with the Sound Canvas series, "editing" of the GM patches is limited to a subset of parameters and offsets at each Part level, which are then applicable to any GM instrument that gets selected for that Part, but that's it.

Cloudschatze wrote:

Again, this is impractical, especially concerning game playback/usage. You would be endlessly tweaking volume levels on the fly - after Reset/System On messages, and following any subsequent Volume or Expression CCs that many sequences are going to contain throughout.

Okay, I get what you are trying to say, but that makes these mixers unusable. However, my understanding is that these MIDI channels are being given relative volume settings across 16 channels. The Expression volume is a different CC, the note velocity is giving the instrument volume, and then there's the master volume. These volume controls are separate, however, the channel volume CC is a relative volume, rather than an absolute volume. This makes more sense with these mixers.

j^aws wrote:

Okay, I get what you are trying to say, but that makes these mixers unusable.

Not at all - just unusable in this context.

For sake-of-argument, let's say I'm about to play some Quest for Glory IV. Here's how the volume level (CC#7) of just Part/Channel 10 looks over the first little bit of gameplay:

100 - Default/GS Reset
107 - Sierra Fanfare
107 - Introduction
107 - The Caves
117 - Battle of the Badders
095 - Escaping the Battle
109 - Wyvern Battle
...and so on.

This doesn't even take into account any use of the game's volume slider, which would further throw things off.

Let's say my synthesizer's GM drumkit is too loud in the mix. Using a device that sends CC#7's (or even just the front panel), I could certainly adjust that volume on the fly, but my setting would get overridden by the in-game music data with every track change. Even if a particular MIDI mixing device were to send a set CC#7 value at recurring micro-intervals (neither of mine do), that fixed value would result in further volume issues between tracks.